Dear Fearless Freddie Freestyle

To the inconsiderate old fart who ruined the tranquility of my tai chi breast stroke moment in the slow lane at the pool today.

Here's a clue. If you are bearing down on someone over and over and over again you are in the wrong lane. You need to move over and swim with the faster fishies.

Here's another clue. I can smoothly sidestroke much, much faster than your splashy freestyle, and I can quietly bear down on you again, and again, and again...like a shark...without even getting out of breath. Spooky huh? And really, really, REALLY annoying (I hope).

Sent from my iPhone. Any typos or errors of grammar, anything really, is the iphone's fault.

Posted via email from badmummysyndrome's posterous

Growing up.

"It takes courage to grow up and turn out to
be who you really are." - e.e. cummings

As usual, just when I don't think I have any courage left, people appear out of the blue to remind me that I just might be worth having faith in.  Never ceases to amaze me, and it's quite, quite humbling.

Posted via email from badmummysyndrome's posterous

Dialogue with a bloke against smacking.

With his permission, I am posting here a conversation I've been having on facebook with a distant relative about smacking. His contributions are in block quotes:

He stated: I have a newfound respect for Eddie McGuire, who has demonstrated impressive insight!

"If an adult was seen to hit a mentally disabled person there would be
uproar, but is it okay to whack a mentally growing human who is not yet
near adult intellect?"
Belting kids is not discipline | Herald Sun
Source: www.heraldsun.com.au
IF EVER there is a topic that will lead to polarising views, it is child rearing.
18 October at 11:12 · Comment · Like · Share

Eddie mentions not being at adult intellect, but fails to follow through on what this implies for children and forms of discipline. That's not insight, it's flinging analogies about with a blindfold on. The guy is still a twit. Sorry :(
Mon at 11:55 · Delete

If Eddie has said or done something else (besides being friends with Sam Newman) that makes you think he's a twit that I'm not aware of, please share. :-)

I've heard some arguments that in some circumstances an opened handed smack on the bottom to a child too young to be reasoned with is in their interests as it helps them to learn to avoid dangerous behaviours. Frighten them away from the stove, running on the road, sticking things in the socket.

And yet it is wrong and illegal to hit a dog. Although they do have leashes on collars when they go for a walk so they can't do anything dangerous. I saw a family in a shopping centre once, with a toddler (age 2-3) wearing a harness that was on a leash the mother was holding - I digress.

A point Eddie McGuire makes is that adults get frustrated - frustrated at each other, and want to hit each other, but can't because its against the law.

It is wrong and illegal for an adult to hit another adult who is disobedient, frustrates them, causes them to lose their patience, etc, and yet adults are capable of being reasoned with (or claim to be), so they shouldn't make mistakes that require punishment with violence should they?
Oh that's right, adults aren't perfect either.

I can't help but wonder, as someone who has never had a child of his own, what percentage of "smacks" (and that is just smacking, not including using an implement or going too far) are actually in the child's best developmental/discipline/safety interest, and what percentage result from a parent (or teacher, back when they were allowed to) who is frustrated, out of patience, cranky, running late, hormonal, headache, tired, etc.

Being able to smack children certainly must save a lot of parents a great deal of time and effort. It used to save teachers time and effort too - Eddie writes that
"Yes, it takes a lot longer to reason with a kid and explain a situation.
In my school days my mates and I would rather cop the cuts than suffer a Saturday detention. Same for the teachers.
But we all knew which had the bigger effect."

As someone who agrees is it wrong to hit another man or woman, and also wrong to hit a dog, it seems to me like some suspiciously convenient morally relative position whereby it is still ok to hit a child.

Arguments that the child should know better could also apply to other adults, right?
And arguments that the child is incapable of understanding could also apply to pets?
And yet, the maximum penalty for animal cruelty or neglect is still dismally short - 12 months in prison.

We should take the time to use words with adults, and animals are defenceless.
If the exception with children is that they are growing and capable of learning, developing brains that will be capable of understanding, what are they learning?
Mon at 12:51

Argh, I don't have time to address all of your points though I do address some of them on my BadMummy blog.

I didn't know it was illegal to smack dogs! Must have missed the memo. When our dog was biting 12yo (then 5) the vet recommended hitting him and gave us instructions on how to do it effectively and when to stop. We now have a gorgeous dog who will let children take food from his mouth. I do not regret this course of action. And having personally been picked up and shaken by a horse, both bitten and chased by a dog, and my father nearly having died from a deep cat bite I do not agree with you that animals are helpless. Though I agree that deliberate cruelty to them goes under-punished.

Adults do hit each other when frustrated, all the time, and most don't press charges. Advocates of the well timed smacking of children (like me) will always stress that you must NEVER touch your children when you are tired or frustrated and that is always the wrong reason to deliver a smack.

I've also seen anti-smackers I know shake their children, pinch them, or grab them by the arm and drag them. But that's ok apparently because you're not hitting them. And the same parents are reluctant to admit that their child was beyond reason as though that's some kind of failure. There's a pooload of hypocrisy in this debate.

I don't agree that it is always wrong to hit another adult. I can think of plenty of scenarios where hitting another adult would be morally obligatory.

I have never heard of "the child should know better" arguments against smacking? This sounds a little confused.

3yo understands that a smack means she has gone too far, so as a child who deliberately pushes the limits she tends to get more than average. She gets reminders that she needs to listen to us, then she gets warnings, with counting so that she has plenty of time to make up her mind (danger smacks are an exception, but oddly she's never had any of those!). She does not get smacked out of the blue when we are tired or angry.

She has had it explained to her that we only ever smack her when she is badly behaved and not listening, and that ONLY we can do that because we made her and it's our job to teach her how to be a good girl. She knows that no other grown ups are allowed to do this.

One day I'll have the presence of mind to video the course of events so that the anti-smackers can watch my 3yo weigh up whether or not a smack is worth the thrill of being naughty. Sometimes, despite all warnings, she goes ahead anyway and the last resort protocol kicks in. In these cases she KNOWS she is going to get smacked and chooses a course of action that will ensure it (because Mummy does not make threats she won't carry out). She's a total mystery to me.

Thank you for noting that you're a non-parent at the beginning. It sets you apart from a lot of tossers I know :)
Mon at 13:20 · Delete

McGuire's original article was a response to a debate sparked by a woman who was warned by police after her daughter told someone at school that her mother had hit her with a wooden spoon.
I mean seriously, that just sounds lazy to me, parent can't even hit the child with their own open palms, they have to extent their reach/increase impact speed with some kitchen utensil.

I wasn't thinking in the context of an animal that is being violent because I don't spend any time around violent animals.
I was thinking of an animal that won't go where it is told, or toilets where it shouldn't, or destroys objects for fun.

And yes, you trained your dog, but there are plenty of adults out there who train their spouses too.

I wasn't making a "child should know better" argument, I was making a "its wrong to hit adults yet they should know better" bullshit suggestion, to demonstrate how relativistic it sounds.

I'm willing to bet that for every "anti-smacker" that then engages in some sick behaviour like pinching or shaking, there are ten "I should have the right to discipline my children PRO smackers" who go far too far, and DO smack when they are frustrated, tired, headache, hormones, inpatient, personality disorder, etc, and DO exceed the level of physical force that is appropriate - like the one i saw on the tram who full swing full speed smacked her 1yo (in the pram) right across the face. I won't say any more about that at this point.

In what circumstances should adults tolerate being hit or think its ok to hit another adult?

And if they don't complain within say, a week, to the police, do they still retain the right to complain years later when they drag the person through court and want to smear their character because the relationship "didn't work out"?

I'm not a parent, but as for bad behaviour/not listening/being naughty, would it not be easy for say, some man to adapt what you have said to an analogies about his girlfriend/wife? It is the cultural norm for men to do so in a considerable percentage of the world's communities.

Seriously, give a young fool like me an example of what a 3yo can do, and I can think of an equivalent many grown adults would do.

It seems that people can draw the line for smacking someone somewhere where it suits them best, and in this case, it seems to be "no violence, no abuse, (nevermind the slippery slope), only a JUSTIFIED smack, and only to CHILDREN, WHEN they really need it".

I'm sure most of the female "smacking defenders" would draw the line well before it reached a "justified smack" for THEM, unless they consensually enjoy that sort of thing, which is completely separate issue.
Mon at 19:12

Um, I don't have time to respond now... but I elaborate on the difference between children and adults here http://badmummysyndrome.blogspot.com/2009/10/great-smacking-debateagain.html
Mon at 20:43 · Delete

"McGuire's original article was a response to a debate sparked by a woman who was warned by police after her daughter told someone at school that her mother had hit her with a wooden spoon.
I mean seriously, that just sounds lazy to me, parent can't even hit the child with their own open palms, they have to extent their reach/increase impact speed with some kitchen utensil."

Actually, having spoken to other mothers about this, it's not about the extension of reach, or increased impact. I hear that it's because they don't want to use their hands to discipline their children. I get that sentiment. Also, a lot of the time parents are just doing what they perceive to have worked for them. The wooden spoon didn't work for us (my mother broke one on my brother, didn't seem to help her out much), but then again, nothing my mother did worked for us because she was totally inconsistent in her disciplining. She could have used a cattle prod, it wouldn't have made any difference because things that were fine one day were crimes the next. There is much more to discipline than the implement.

"I wasn't thinking in the context of an animal that is being violent because I don't spend any time around violent animals."

Sorry, I only said what I did because you claimed that animals were helpless.

"I was thinking of an animal that won't go where it is told, or toilets where it shouldn't, or destroys objects for fun."

All things a person should be prepared for when they buy a puppy. Unfortunately, as you are already stating, people are not always aware that puppies (or other animals) have special behaviours and requirements and if they are ignorant or just cruel they abuse the animal for it. Parents who are ignorant or cruel abuse their children too.

"And yes, you trained your dog, but there are plenty of adults out there who train their spouses too."

That's an odd analogy. I don't see how you can really compare the two situations. Ever tried to sit down and reason with a dog? In the spouse situation, there is a viable alternative and this makes the "training by hitting" morally wrong. I've only ever met one "train them with love" dog owner and her dogs were completely out of control, they didn't respect her at all :( And as you've just seen on the news I guess, an out of control dog is a very bad thing indeed.

"I wasn't making a "child should know better" argument, I was making a "its wrong to hit adults yet they should know better" bullshit suggestion, to demonstrate how relativistic it sounds."

*cringe* sorry I still don't get it.

"I'm willing to bet that for every "anti-smacker" that then engages in some sick behaviour like pinching or shaking, there are ten "I should have the right to discipline my children PRO smackers" who go far too far, and DO smack when they are frustrated, tired, headache, hormones, inpatient, personality disorder, etc, and DO exceed the level of physical force that is appropriate - like the one i saw on the tram who full swing full speed smacked her 1yo (in the pram) right across the face. I won't say any more about that at this point."

That woman should have been reported to the police. Did you? Did anyone? Because all the people who did nothing to protect the child are accessories in my humble opinion.

Nothing I have said condones any of the above behaviour. I pointed out the hypocrisy of some anti-smacker types. I have not, at any point, condoned behaviour where parents go too far. That is not discipline, that is venting your frustration on someone who is relatively helpless and completely dependant on you. I'm not sure what you are arguing for here. Are you arguing for discipline by smacking to be outlawed?

"In what circumstances should adults tolerate being hit or think its ok to hit another adult?"

My daughter has a habit of running ahead at the shopping centre. (We do not use a harness out of consideration for other people who want to retain their hearing.) If a bloke picked her up without my permission and I didn't know who they were I wouldn't just hit them I'd probably rugby tackle them and try to break their fucking neck. I think violence would be ok in that circumstance.

To take a milder example. My husband has less nerves than me, occasionally doesn't know his own strength, and tickles me in a painful way. I thump him to make him stop, because it's quicker than explaining (I'm in pain, remember). It was this kind of hitting I had in mind when I said adults do hit each other, and it's not reported. For that matter, siblings hit each other too, particularly if they are not old enough to be articulate about their issues, this can carry on in a milder form into their adulthood.

When I steal food from the chopping board when my step-mother is cooking she slaps my hand away when she thinks I've had enough.

A bloke at CPA had his fingers saved by a guy who pushed him (hard) away from the table saw.

I think that's enough...

"And if they don't complain within say, a week, to the police, do they still retain the right to complain years later when they drag the person through court and want to smear their character because the relationship "didn't work out"?"

In the above scenarios, I don't think the complaints would be taken at all seriously.

"I'm not a parent, but as for bad behaviour/not listening/being naughty, would it not be easy for say, some man to adapt what you have said to an analogies about his girlfriend/wife? It is the cultural norm for men to do so in a considerable percentage of the world's communities."

No, it would not. Because the girlfriend/wife is an reasoning adult.

"Seriously, give a young fool like me an example of what a 3yo can do, and I can think of an equivalent many grown adults would do."

This was the real clincher for me. I'm sure you could. But you would probably deal with their behaviour by removing yourself from the situation and leaving them to their own devices (unless you were their carer which is a different story). Parents hardly ever have that option, it is their responsibility to STOP the behaviour. The situation is utterly different. But if it helps, their are people in our society whose job it is to stop adults behaving dangerously or unsociably, they are policemen, and they are allowed to use force when the adults concerned are not listening to reason.

"It seems that people can draw the line for smacking someone somewhere where it suits them best, and in this case, it seems to be "no violence, no abuse, (nevermind the slippery slope), only a JUSTIFIED smack, and only to CHILDREN, WHEN they really need it".

That's because not all children respond to gentler forms of discipline. That is just a weird genetic personality trait type fact. Call me when you know why or have a cure.

"I'm sure most of the female "smacking defenders" would draw the line well before it reached a "justified smack" for THEM, unless they consensually enjoy that sort of thing, which is completely separate issue."

Most coherent smacking defenders would not indulge in the kind of behaviour that attracted a smack in the first place. Again, we are talking about the behaviour of children, not adults.

I would love to post this exchange on my BadMummy blog with your permission. It's fascinating.
Mon at 21:58 · Delete

thanks for your responses.
please post the conversation on your blog if you like,
I won't clog up our facebooks with any more on it.
Tues at 12:22

That's a shame. I don't get to lock horns on this issue very often. Most people I know personally agree with me. The one person I'm in vague contact with (internet met) who doesn't hasn't spoken to me about it.
5 minutes ago · Delete

Ask a silly question...

12yo got a questionnaire from his future high school today. One of the questions was: What do you want to get out of Year 7?

His off-the-cuff answer?

"More than I put into it."

An honest account of motherly anger? About time.

Well this is slightly topical given my last post...

Film-maker Julia Black, a BAFTA and Grierson nominated independent documentary maker, is making a film about motherly anger. As a mother of two, she is interested in shifting the taboo that surrounds a mother's anger towards her child or children and wishes to research into how many mothers, like her, have been shocked by the level of anger they experience.

Please take a few minutes to fill in this online questionnaire. All answers are entirely anonymous and cannot be traced to your e-mail address.

www.survey.ingenious2.co.uk

I did it, and it can be done in ten minutes or so. There's also room for the more loquacious of us to comment at the end which was nice (for me anyway!).

The great smacking debate...again...

Ah Eddie McGuire is weighing in on the belting of children. The trouble is, he's confusing children and adults...

To compare hitting adults and smacking children is flawed reasoning. Sure we wouldn’t smack an adult for running onto the road, but then, we expect an adult to know and remember that this is a risky thing to do. Most parents successfully reason with their children about the risks of roads, but for those children who can’t be reasoned with a short sharp smack is a good way to make it clear that this behaviour must never, ever happen again. A good way to think about this form of smacking is retrospectiively - which would you rather, a child hit by a car? or a shocked child with a sore bum? When put this way the choice is obvious.

We want to treat our children as though they are people, and we should. By all means remember that they’re human beings with likes and dislikes and that giving them a warning before you leave the park is much nicer for them than being dumped back in the stroller for the homeward trip without warning (how would you like it?). We assume that most adults will take the news that they have to leave a party early with a modicum of grace, we would be shocked at an adult who threw a tantrum. But would we be shocked if a child did? Of course not, because they are a child, they are still learning things like, how to control their emotions and what is appropriate social behaviour. We don’t expect adult behaviour from them.

Yet, certain members of the community seem to think that we should expect them to reason like adults when it comes to disciplining them. This is a gross error and I think that to treat children as adults is to do them and the community a grave disservice as the children who do not respond to adult type discipline will not be disciplined at all. But what is much more serious is this: To treat children as though they are adults is to make assumptions that will end up endangering them.

Again for emphasis:

To treat children as though they are adults is to make assumptions that will ultimately endanger them.

I do not assume that my daughter understands the grave difference between running out of the back door without permission and running onto the road. She’s too young to appreciate that she could be dead if she does the latter. She is, however, old enough to want to avoid the consequence of a smack. In this case treating her like the child she is (rather than the adult I hope she will be) and smacking her when she runs onto the road may save her life. The road is not the place to practise being an adult those places are scenarios where she can’t be hurt or killed — when she chooses the colour of her socks in the morning the mismatch will not harm anyone except for those with symmetry issues.

There is a huge difference between the well-timed smack after several warnings and a whipping with the buckle end of a belt. In my experience, parents who are of the anti-smacking persuasion haven’t been the unfortunate parents of challenging children. Having been blessed with one angel child (who has totalled 3 smacks in twelve years and those for dangerous behaviour) while the other seems to channel Satan on occasion, I challenge any of the anti-smacking brigade to spend a month with my extremely active and recalcitrant three year old without giving her at least one well timed, calmly delivered smack on the hand to keep her behaviour within acceptable boundaries. In other words, keeping her and those around her safe and sane. In a healthy home, a smack is usually the last resort for children who cannot be reached by reason or the withdrawal of treats or priviledges, time-outs or naughty corners. Those children are far more common than most people think and their beleagured parents, who are only trying to keep their kids safe, need to be given a break.

What do I want?

Good food, good drink, to be warm in winter and not too hot in summer, to have moral, well-rounded and content children, to have a small circle of good friends who get my jokes, a devoted partner who can make me laugh even in my blackest moods, a vegetable garden and to figure out what makes humans, well, human. I want to have all this while living in an equitable society.

I’ve very nearly got them all. Australia is slowly getting there. I haven’t planted anything this year but planning to be raring to go for autumn and the 3yo is slowly getting the all important “Do unto others” maxim. It’s the penultimate one that’s going to be the corker. What makes humans human? What are humans anyway? What are we? WHO are we? What on earth are we for? and most importantly (for me anyway), how do we work?

I’ve done a science degree majoring in biological molecules, I’ve explored the world of plants, microbes, insects, reptiles and mammals and it still amazes me that something as complex as an ant could emerge from an exquisitely organised cluster of molecules let alone a thinking, feeling, acting human being capable of immense wonders, dire atrocities and love that makes my heart flip every time I encounter it.

When I crumble homemade compost through my fingers I wonder: how can we be made from essentially the same stuff as this? It is naught but luck that some of the carrots in our house turned into compost and some into human via hungry kiddie tummies. No wonder people invented a divine creator (apologies to those who don’t think the creator was an invention) - something to stop the wondering that could drive most men mad. Fortunately for me I’m not most men (I don’t envy them their genitalia to be honest and seriously, if there is a creator, I think they’ve got some explaining to do in that area) but the question is driving me mad. Not because I don’t like the wonder, but because (despite my husbands Herculean efforts) I get to spend so little time devoted to it.

Parents simply don’t get to swim in entrancing questions the way people can when they do not have caring commitments. And when the question is one of human consciousness, there’s a great deal of swimming needs to be done. So what do I want? I don’t want a Nanny, I like my children most of the time and they need their parent around. Maybe I’d like an extra 72 hours a week just for me. Yep, that’s what I want. A little speedy time capsule so I could nab an extra 72 hours while the others slept. I might age a little faster than my husband, I might use some of those extra hours for sleeping, who knows? The point is they would be just for me. Some guilt-free hours just for me, that’s what I really want.

Oh FFS Coles...

... It's f@&cking October.

Sent from my iPhone

Posted via email from badmummysyndrome's posterous

12yo is home alone....

...so being the worrying type, I call him to see what he's up to. I worry less that he's going to get into trouble and more that he'll spend all day on the couch with the play station.

Me: "Have you been outside today?"

12yo: "No, but I've spent some time playing in my bedroom with my axe."

Oh well THAT's ok then.